I have been in communication with Rick Bradford, a.k.a. William Collins, and he notes that from his research, he estimates that the real false allegation rate (not the number proved false through police investigation) is likely to be far greater than the 10 percent figure, probably greater than 50 percent.
Part of the problem here is that much of the popular media and even politicians don't understand the actual law. So an awful lot of accusations go nowhere because in fact no crime was committed, a lot because no one involved can actually remember anything and a lot because having consensual sex and regretting later isn't actually a crime. A really common one is where the young woman has lied about her age. Basically the police get a huge deluge of stuff based on feminist propaganda in the media, not actually what is in law criminal. Rape is bandied about as a term but is has a specific meaning in our law. One huge problem is our "criminal injuries compensation" scheme. Supposedly to help the victims of violent crimes in general, under feminist pressure rape and sexual assaults are the only crimes where the complainant gets compensation (about £10,000 now) irrespective of a conviction or even going to court. All it needs is a "crime number" from the Police, they don't even have to investigate it! Perverse incentive exemplified!
I would estimate that a criminal penalty for false accusation would be a pretty good deterrent, and it wouldn't have to be much, say six months mandatory incarceration, with no option for suspended sentence.
Of course, the problem is that intimate contact, whether consensual or not, usually only involves the two people in attendance, so proof would be difficult, but just the threat would be stultifying for the false accuser.
I wonder if it's a British thing not to talk about money. Another good example is "legal aid" basically where the state pays for your lawyer. This was available in "family court" proceedings, but some years ago was withdrawn..... except where there were accusations of domestic abuse. Research a couple of years later (because the legal aid bill had not gone down) found that the expected savings had not been realised because half the cases before family court now included an accusation of domestic abuse. This was a massive leap from the 10% that the savings had been calculated. The ministry of justice report even said it was evident some solicitors firms were advising clients to make the claim to get gov. funds. Of course nothing much was done. And now well over half include accusation. Again all that is needed is an accusation, no proof or investigation. Here such obvious perverse incentoves caused by access to state largess never seem to cause any actual action. Because, it seems, the ones abusing the system are female in the main. Even worse in a recent research it was found some men collude with this as it reduces their costs, because otherwise they may have to pay the "ex's" legal Bill's!
So funding, not reality, means we have an "epidemic" of domestic abuse in family court cases to do with child custody proceedings.
Not on Record a YouTube channel where lawyers discuss legal issues in Canada, had a section of their YouTube video removed when they estimated the number of times false allegations are made. They talk about conducting research into the rates of false allegations.
I’m afraid the ‘idiot allegations’ are what really counts. False allegations are when nothing happened, when the two maybe even didn’t meet that night, outright lies. ‘Idiot allegations’ are about sex or intimacy the woman feels ashamed of afterwards, didn’t like as much as she expected, feels the initiative of the men was too one-sided, doesn’t want to admit her agency for herself and her friends because she doesn’t want to feel like a slut and ‘this was crap, ok, next time better’ feels so slutty. There’s a Belgian book, ‘Valse zeden’, that’s all about this. (There are actually quite a few good antifeminist books in Dutch, especially from the 1980, by quite well-known authors. They should be translated, but I’m afraid they aren’t even reprinted now.)
In The Myth of Male Power (1993), Warren Farrell references a U.S. Air Force investigation of 556 cases of alleged rape, in which 60% were shown to be false, and a follow-up study of the police records of two "major cities" that showed the same result. Of course none of these studies were ever published, for fear of political repercussions. And this was more than 30 years ago.
Yes, this was also on discovery channel with Sam Donaldson back in the 1990's. The Airforce told Sam Donaldson that 60% of rape allegations in the military are FALSE. And only those where the accusers admitted they lied were counted! 'Victoria Toensing said: "That doesn't sound right" "That can't be right" So here again fe-MALE sensibilities out powers the truth.
I would add to that an estimate I have made of the rate of false allegations of domestic abuse in the family courts in England & Wales, which is 60% or more. (Details available in my recent book, The Illustrated Empathy Gap - shameless plug!).
Hi Rick. I really struggle to locate your book when searching online (surprise surprise). I have searched a few times in the past and always seem to get redirected- sometimes to pro feminist books with very similar titles. Is there a reliable source I can use to find your book?
On Amazon.com The Empathy Gap (2019) is here https://tinyurl.com/2wfet649. I apologise for the paperback price but near 700 pages doesn't come cheap. However, there is a kindle version for $5.99. The new book, The Illustrated Empathy Gap is here https://tinyurl.com/yh7uxhw6. Another 700 pages so also pricy. No ebook as yet. The two books do not duplicate.
And let's not forget to mention that the descriptions of sexual assault etc. have been expanded to inclusive things which are not sexual or not assault.
I've known women who have actually been assaulted, seriously assaulted. They usually don't even talk about it because it is so traumatizing. They often don't want to go through the legal process, they just want to get away from it. I suppose they might have been lying, but I don't think so. They had no reason to do so.
Makes me wonder if the assault allegations made publicly are quite likely to be false, and that a lot more assault happens than we realize, because it never gets talked about. Guys who get assaulted in prison never talk about it, in the main. It is too humiliating and painful to remember.
Each and every day as the evidence piles up I am more convinced that I want nothing to do with ANY Western woman. Although it looks like my bloodline ends here, the risk of doing something about it just not worth it.
I laugh out loud at the "boss babes" and "We don't need no man" crowd. Really, Karen? Look around you. You will be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING that keeps you alive or in comfort that wasn't invented, built, and CURRENTLY maintained by a man, including the powerlines that bring the electrons for your use online in denigrating those same men.
It's over, girls. You're not remotely worth the risk. Until they get sex robots perfected, I'll go my own way, thankyouverymuch. And when they do, there won't be a married man in the country. I'm sorry, Janice - you are clearly a unicorn, so all is not lost - but certainly it is for me ....
Agree. Over and over I sense that Western women look upon men as dogs in need of training. I can also sense that they absolutely hate it when you refuse to be trained.
So one can appreciate why the feminist hordes really lose their shit over the MGTOW movement or the Passport Bros trend.
As Jim Wills above states, dealing with these miserable hags (and haggettes) just isn’t worth it.
This aberration (among women of the West) will not change in the lifetime of any man over the age of 50. If we survive the political upheavals coming this summer and fall, it will come to an end when young women become aware of how bitter and angry their unmarried aunts, mothers and their friends, crazy cat women all, are!
It is then and only then that they will start to ask themselves the question’s starting with this one. ‘My Gd what have we done to ourselves’
I don't really view them as "hags" at all; I have known several very fine women in my lifetime - my accountant, Sandy, case in point. Quiet, thoughtful, soft-spoken but razor-sharp in corporate meetings and always - always - on my side. If I were looking for a partner, she would be precisely the one. Dead now from cancer.
Many, many fine women - especially the ones in my high school class. At reunions I see them, still married to the same Really Good Guys, and 1971 was a long time ago.
But what I see of the modern younger ones on TikTok and YouTube, God! Tatted-up, hog-ringed, many ADMITTING to body counts in the mid-three-digits, but proud of it! Totally delusional about what marriage means. There's a third rail if I ever saw one.
My nephew is near my age and lost his wife three years ago. (How careless of him!) Anyway, he tried the U.S. dating apps. OMG. He has everything to offer: debt-free, amiable, retired with no children, good with money and has plenty of it. Except he's 5'6". Not a single "swipe-right." I had a divorced friend who went to the Philippines with a mission group, found a lovely traditional Filipina, and married her. Happy as a clam. I connected him with my nephew and now HE is marrying a Filipina! Should I ever lose my mind and look for a female human, that's where I'll go.
Perhaps I should have qualified the ‘hags’remark. It’s true, there were many fine women prior to the official advent of the ‘feminist revolution’. I married one and we were together for 52 years. My comment was more reflective of the type of western female who was brought up under the various waves of feminism since.
Chuck an even WORSE phenomenon is 'Christian' wo-MEN losing their shit over MEN going their own way. All of Twitter is a parade of FAKE Christian wo-MEN trying to SHAME MEN for not wanting to marry. The modern church seems to confuse wo-MEN's security is a barometer for morality, more so than scripture. Pearl Davis is a gem IMOP, as she rails against the modern church and what she calls trad/CON/ 'Christian fEMINISTS' As a believer myself, I can tell you Pearl is right when she says MOST "Christian' wo-MEN are NO different than fEMINISTS
You wouldn't be referring to Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, by chance? I enjoyed them for a time, but the preaching and lecturing about Red Pill men got a little old I don't watch them anymore. Glad they're happily (maybe?) married, but it doesn't always work out for everyone, and it's not always the man exclusively to blame.
Them, and many others including Jordan PETER PAN. Tucker Carlson as well. These types want MEN to FIX everything wo-MEN'S liberation broke. MANY of these 'Christian fEMINISTS' want to retain the license fEMINISM gave them while holding MEN to biblical roles, but not themselves.
It's not too long ago Aussie nutcase Clementine Ford was in the media railing about such devices. Meanwhile women have had the equivalent of sex robots available since the late Victorian era.
The "toy" world is quite interesting at the moment. It seems men are looking for something resembling an entire woman whilst women will reduce it all down to an appendage alone which doesn't even need to resemble anything human. I believe various animal versions are all the rage now.
My ex-wife had a small online publishing company - defunct now - that produced exclusively "Mommy porn," and I would occasionally edit a book or two. Women have always consumed this stuff to some degree, disguised in the old days as "romance magazines." In those times the racier passages were couched in euphemism and innuendo lest the Postal Inspector get involved.
Fast forward to the Sexual Revolution of the 'sixties and 'seventies. Women's attraction to the idea of "being overpowered" - rape-fantasy really - led to the Bodice-Ripper genre, with lusty pirates and no-nonsense spanking cowboys - who would occasionally toss the haughty lass across the saddle for a dose of the horse's reins across her bare backside - coming into fashion, but of course the public could see by the book cover exactly what you were reading.
Then came the Kindle, and the whole genre was blown wide open. Men, more visual, generally don't buy "romance" books. In my wife's company, around 98% of Mommy Porn was written by women and 99% consumed by them, with a high percentage of sales going to other authors! Books could be uploaded, transmitted, and received in anonymity. And read. When you are sitting on the beach with your Kindle or iPad, nobody has the slightest clew what you're reading. Combine this with the feminist era, where women are encouraged to behave sexually like men, and violà! A new industry.
Men tend to live in their hands - and their cranks; they don't read this stuff. Women live in their heads. With all the stops pulled, anything goes now: Wolf sex. Sex with aliens, who have all sorts of, ahem, advantages that normal men don't have. Forced pregnancy (breeding fantasy) is popular - especially with those well-advantaged aliens. It's a bloody free-for-all.
And of course this leads to interesting toys to fuel those fantasies. If you want a little entertainment, look up the offerings from bad-dragon.com. It would appear that horses are quite the rage this year .... LOL.
Yes, I was alluding to bad dragon actually. It may interest you to know the band Steely Dan was named after a steam powered dildo which featured in William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch". These machines were all the rage in the late Victorian era. I'm also very suspicious about what Cleopatra was actually doing with her asps.
I'm a big fan of Steely Dan's and actually knew that. I'm a wellspring of useless information. Know where ZZ Top's name came from? How about Led Zeppelin? REO Speedwagon? My aunt serendipitously mentioned that her father once owned an .... wait for it.... Reo Speedwagon. Made by Diamond Reo.
Here's one hardly anybody knows; I'm not sure you can even look it up: Marshall Tucker.... no, I was wrong; Grok knows, at least. I heard it on an old rock 'n roll show at least thirty years ago.
**********
addendum: I consulted the great oracle at Grok and was assured that Decent female sex robots were 1-2 years away, and Quite Good in 3-5. Grok says this is not general public knowledge, but advances are being made rapidly. I live in a college town, and God, you wouldn't believe the coeds walking the streets here. They say engineers use their personalities for birth control; nubile girls in their teens and twenties are now using tats and hog rings. When a 71-year-old man says, "no way," it's bad. Really bad. I think a dose of that stuff and a drink of water would probably kill you.
If they ever invent the Cherry 2000 it will be the greatest step forward for human civilization since the Neolithic revolution.
When I was a teenaged minor I was forced by my mother to play Gigolo to this flat chested female U of O student who looked like she had down syndrome ( it was a small town and they got the local martial arts instructors to beat me up until I went along with it).
The none sense that would come out of the mouths of her and her friends was staggering. I still remember one of her 23 year old friends saying " Christen has been raped dozens of times. She neve says no to a guy she likes".
FAKE Christian wo-MEN are 'WORSE' than fEMINISTS. They are taking the lords name in vain by portraying themselves as Christians and trying to shame MEN into marrying even though the Apostle Paul said: "It is better 'not' to marry"
Another excellent article. I am so tired of seeing and hearing women go on and on about men and everything wrong, bad or evil being their fault. How about acting like adults, accepting some responsibility and realising there are two sides to every story before getting out the pitchforks and torches. Look around as there is a hell of a lot of good in this world courtesy of men. All this constant and increasing negativity and condemnation is not good for children especially the males as pointed out in one of Janice’s recent articles.
I had to chuckle every time I saw a reference to a woman (feminist or otherwise) claiming that #MeToo was some sort of opportunity for the country to have a “frank” discussion about sex.
The outward facade/implication of a balanced, fair, nuanced discussion is just adorable.
This must be the way men feel when their significant other tells them, “We need to talk.” In reality, it’s more like, “We need to talk…about all the things YOU’RE doing wrong.”
Any truly “frank” discussion about sex between men and women would be at least half dedicated to women’s responsibilities as they pertain to sex, as well as their pathological tendency to exploit and/or manipulate men using it.
I won’t hold my breath on that occurring…
At the end of the day, I think women are keenly aware (on some level of consciousness) that their biggest “trump cards” in life are 1) sex and 2) victimhood.
Sexuality isn’t a woman’s only value, but it is, I would argue, her greatest source of power and influence. Nothing else on earth moves the proverbial needle more than that. Victimhood is a close-ish, but definite second place.
Mind you, I don’t think that that is necessarily women’s fault. Like any other power, it’s not about whether it’s possessed, but rather how it’s wielded.
I think that the reason why most men have such a visceral, enraged reaction to the idea of a woman being raped and those who perpetrate it is because it essentially combines those two elements of sex and victimhood.
A man is essentially stealing sex by victimizing women.
Women recognize this. The less morally-scrupulous among them will use it to their benefit, which is why false accusations of sexual assault/rape are as powerful as they are, and why women will fight tooth and nail to retain and augment the absurdly one-sided advantage they possess when it comes to all matters of sex, irrespective of the chaos and injustice left in their wake.
As with most any other facet of life, people generally operate based upon incentive(s), or a lack thereof. As long as the potential benefits of making a false accusation outweigh the potential consequences (as they currently do), you can expect them to continue unabated.
I think that there’s been a misunderstanding. Allow me to elaborate/clarify.
When I say that sexuality and victimhood are a woman’s two biggest trump cards and/or sources of power in life, and that I don’t necessarily fault them for that, I’m referring to the innate sexual value they hold (and men’s innate sex drive), as well as their innate value in the reproductive equation (and men’s resulting inclination to protect them from harm).
In other words, when it comes to their sexuality, the fact that they were born with something that most men greatly desire and relentlessly pursue is not their fault, and I can’t take them to task for merely existing with a vagina.
Similarly, when it comes to victimhood, I can’t fault them for merely existing in (and being the beneficiaries of) a world where men possess and act on a protection instinct for them. They didn’t instill men’s innate protective instinct for them any more than they instilled men’s innate sexual desire for them.
- Now, with that being said -
I ABSOLUTELY fault them for the amoral, shameless, and flagrant ways in which they have (and do) exploit their sexuality to solicit attention, enrich themselves and manipulate men.
I COMPLETELY fault them for the amoral, shameless, and flagrant ways in which they have (and do) exploit alleged victimhood to enrich themselves, manipulate and hurt men, and elicit sympathy and praise from the populace.
The ways in which they play on both men’s innate desire for them and desire to keep them safe and free from harm are morally bankrupt and ethically repugnant.
They are indisputably, undeniably, and completely at fault for these things.
As I said in my initial post, it’s not about merely possessing power, but rather about how that power is used.
Weapons are completely benign and powerless in the hands of individuals who have no intention of using them for illicit and/or amoral purposes.
This is a brilliant and much needed piece. Exploring all perspectives is the only pathway to understanding. This issue exists in family court matters too where women make astoundingly brutal and false accusations to get what they want. It happened to a friend of mine. He never recovered from the assault on his character by a woman who was once deeply in love with him. He died on the end of a knife held by a drug addicted stripper he had been in a relationship with, the end of his self degrading journey to the bottom.
I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. His is a story that shows how much cruelty can be done in the name of aiding people who are cast as defenseless victims who are not required to take responsibility and back up their claims.
I learned an interesting fact not long ago. In the Philippines, not only does filing for divorce not guarantee getting a divorce, but their courts can declare one of the parties divorced and able to remarry, while the other partner is legally unable to remarry.
This led me to ponder the question of the suddenly vast number of allegedly brutal wife and child-abusing husbands (whose offensive behavior is unnoticed for years or decades, when someone wants to trade in the relationship for cash & property). The women who would divorce such monsters would be releasing abusive monsters to do the same to other women. If a woman were only divorcing because she truly received violence she never returned, she could prevent him doing it to anyone else via legal separation. But if she wants her "freedom" and doesn't give a thought to the harm women he might meet in future, what does that make her? Of course, if all this violence against wives & kids is just made up to secure a fatter divorce settlement, there would be no reason to worry about any subsequent wives.
It's remarkably similar to how women who claim rape happened years or decades ago would have been allowing their attackers to be free to attack other women, until suddenly, society is expected to punish the man without all the pesky investigation and examination of evidence.
Wow, I had no idea about the Philippines. Have you written on this topic, or are you going to? I have some friends who are seriously considering the Philippines as a place to try to start a family with a more traditionally-oriented woman. They would be very interested to learn about the divorce laws in that country.
As for the argument about women not caring about other women, yes--but all that is covered, supposedly, by the terrible trauma allegedly suffered, which prevents prompt and logical action.
We had a situation here in Australia in the 80s-90s, where a number of men would look to the Philippines for a bride.
They would get married, buy a house, have a child and wait 2 years for their permanent residency to be granted. Then one day whilst the husband is at work, they would file for a divorce, at the same time claiming to be victims of DV restraining order and change the locks on the house.
It was happening on a semi regular basis, enough to notice that the plan was for residency, to have a home and ditch the guy.. It got to a point after a few years, the government introduced a little something that the women had to prove their genuine marital intentions, or be deported back..
Eventually though, interest in Pilipino brides began to wane, mostly in favour of other Asian nationals that were actually more genuine.
Marrying Asian women over western women comes with its risks too. Once these girls can smell the money you're in for some trouble.
Not all of them are like that though. Probably a relative minority, but it is hard to tell who is genuine and who is a gold digger until everything hits the fan.
The story where I learned about Philippine divorce law was similar, but with an American guy. But because they'd tied the knot in the Philippines, not the US, the chick did not get away with it, and she is forbidden from remarrying within the Philippines.
I learned this earlier this year from a video about an American guy who married a Philippino woman. As I recall, after a short time, she she became demanding about how he should spend money on her and her relatives. He had luckily married her in the Philippines, not the US, which is why he was able to divorce her there. I hadn't thought about writing about Philippine marriage law or this guy's story, but perhaps it would be a service to men who think a Philippino bride is an easy answer. The situation that men who'd make great family men find themselves in these days is absolutely horrific. (I'll see if I can track down the video, my first guess turned up nothing. Have to see how far back my history goes...)
Oh, right, the trauma card. No need to have any compassion for anyone but oneself ):
Or, for that matter, how many lynchings of black men occurred due to false allegations by women? Emmett Till wasn't accused of rape, only "wolf whistling" at a white woman, but the result was the same. Especially in the South, every black man knew the danger and every white woman her power.
One of the only things that will reliably flummox a woke feminist ideolgue is when they begin waxing eloquent about Emmet Till's innocence and you ask them "But what about 'believe all women'."They're also not happy hearing that Till's father was convicted for raping and murdering a woman while stationed in France during WWII.
A couple of years ago I found a site that listed all the known deaths by lynchings etc during a decade of that period. It listed the reason. I counted them over 60% were accusation of rape of a white woman another 15% were disrespecting or harassing a white woman. No doubt mostly untrue but a clear demonstration of the power of accusation to mobilise other men against the accused.
Just remember this was a 14-year-old boy tortured, and murdered on the unsupported, and false, word of an evil sow, using the prejudices of the day to exercise feminine power.
Carolyn Bryant denied recanting to author Timothy Tyson, and while he made recordings of interviews with her, he has never released any recording of her recanting and has made inconsistent statements about whether he did or did not record her recanting. The Justice Dept. refused to indict herhttps://www.crimeonline.com/2022/08/09/grand-jury-wont-charge-accuser-carolyn-bryant-donham-in-emmett-tills-1955-slaying/
What's "funny" is that if traditional Christian morality were upheld as the standard, most of these problems would fall away. Women wouldn't be falling asleep on strange men's shoulders on the first date. Men who have women fall asleep on them would know that that isn't an invitation to go for sex. Girls wouldn't be getting plastered at frat parties. People would know on a gut-level that the biological purpose of sex is babies, and social expectations would honor that fact. A patriarchy that respects women, that honors Mary as the greatest of God's creatures, would be in place. Each sex wouldn't have to imagine the other sex imagining them as nothing but f***-objects because minds wouldn't be saturated in porn. Etc. The world needs Christ.
The problems continue past the hook up culture today's young people inhabit. All the activities that could be put under the umbrella of "serial monogamy" - multiple sex partners, living together, easy divorce/multiple marriages are demonstrably incompatible with human nature just by observing the results. There's no such a thing as a mutual break up, one partner wants out (at least in the moment, divorce regret is not insignificant). Once the feeling of being part of a couple is established, it never goes away. Neither wants to see the other with a new partner. The conflict between exes and with exes new partners is inevitable. Jealousy is a powerful force that modern people seem to ignore. Also, weirdly, with non-marital sex, easy divorce and polyamory accepted by society, there's more cheating, not less. One marriage for life is so much more compatible with human nature.
About half of today's children are products of not just broken homes, but repeatedly broken homes, by parents who split up before they're born, and those who have a series of partners while their kids are growing up.
"Neither wants to see the other with a new partner."
Not true! My wife left me for one of my mates, and apart from the initial shock I couldn't have been happier. My only regret is that I never thanked him for taking her off my hands. Six months later she wanted to come back, and I refused. So she stayed with him, much to my relief!
Claims about (a singular) human nature are difficult. Both biology and culture are flexible, and both co-determine human nature. Variability is a fundamental feature of the human species.
HALF true. The modern church is gynocentric as you seem to be as well. As Paul Elam has pointed out: Jesus rejected the worship of wo-MEN. When a wo-MAN said to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you" Jesus said: "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear & do the word of God" wo-MEN are no more special than MEN. Also, many of God's prophets had multiple wives & even slave girls, I believe the Apostle Paul admitted he fornicated, my point is morality is good, BUT it can't be selective. That is put on MEN but not wo-MEN.
In the UK as the Sexual Offences Bill was being debated (it became the Act, a law in England and Wales 2003). A part of the debate in Parliament and in the media was about terminology. With even some feminist Barristers arguing for "Sexual Assault" to be used consistently for the various clauses. On two grounds: One that modernising the law should mean doing away with Victorian notions of sex being "sacred" and women in particular being pure. Two: was the more practical thing that juries would be less likely to convict when faced with two drunken people having sex recreationally when the crime wasn't described as Rape which the public understood as including violent assault. Indeed some argued that doing away with the emotive term "Rape" would help convictions because it would better focus on consent. However many feminists and "white knights" piled in on the shear heinousness of "such men" and the Act was passed with the word Rape used for one of the listed sexual assaults "penetration" with a penis or object. I mention this because what was very evident is that the feminists were really keen to be old fashioned in terminology because the cry "Rape" transcends any reasoned discussion and actually produces hoards of white knights long conditioned to step in to save delicate women, and support feminist "solutions".
Of course what this showed was there is no "condoning" of "rape" in our culture (it had been in our law since Alfred the Great) but the reverse, that it is something that will mark the accused as beyond the pale of society and masculinity. Hence it was always a "capital" crime with severe consequences. From a time where any sex outside marriage and procreation was morally unacceptable! Recently our society has "modernised" in its sexual attitudes, the sexual revolution, and now sex is simply a healthy expression of human urges to be enjoyed as a health giving activity frequently and without guilt. Juries quite reasonably need to be very convinced that the drunken post party one night stands they are asked to judge, was serious enough to warrant years in prison for a man. Mercifully often they are not so persuaded "beyond reasonable doubt ", not because of "myths" but the difficuly of deciding if a coupling was a capital crime where frequent and promiscuous couplings are now a normalised.
A few years ago Germain Greer returned to this by saying that it should be just "sexual assault" and the sentences include just fines, because it was clear that it made no sense to advocate free love and celebrate "sluts" and treat drunken ungentlemanly behaviour as a capital crime. Cue a pile on , and recantation.
So the feminists prove the falsity of their claims by the fact they definitely don't want to modernise, because crying "Rape" is such a powerful leverage to get men on their side! After all "two young students got drunk, had sex, can't remember much and regret it" has less leverage.
Well said. Sex is simply a recreational activity until the woman decides it isn't, and then it is a very serious thing with grave, possibly lifelong, emotional and psychological consequences. It is ludicrous to accept that 'consent' covers it all.
Long before the Duke lacrosse case of 2006, there was the case of Adam Lack at Brown University in Providence RI, back in the late 90s. His case presaged what was to come with MeToo some 20 years later. Little has been written about what happened to Adam, and how his life was ruined by a false accusation after consensual sex in his dorm room, and how the feminist mob - the student daily newspaper with apparent collusion by the university administration - forced him to leave school. I can fill you in on the details if you like. It didn’t get much notice outside Brown and Ivy League circles, but there was some local press coverage as I recall.
Very interested, please. The problem with so many of these cases is how little coverage they receive, how hard it is to access the records, and how reluctant the male victim is to speak about what happened to him.
A friend and I were just discussing Catherine Comins' role at Vassar from 1989-1991 and how interesting it would be to look into the cases she adjudicated. But I suspect it would be extremely difficult to find the evidence.
A female civil court judge ignores the only two male eye witnesses to an alleged sexual assault by a supervisor accused by a young casual staff member with a history of recalcitrance and insolence.
It was a die cast when the female union rep began the session with "we believe all women."
The worker go her money, and the accused, a father and husband, had his career and life permanently tainted by a criminal charge in a civil court, where "balance of probabilities" gave the (later "retired" judge an easy way to satisfy her ideological bent. All others involved were also damaged by an obviously lying young scoundrel.
In one, we learn of a woman who, nervous on a first date, rather inexplicably fell asleep with her head on the man’s shoulder and “woke up to find him on top of me, forcing himself on me.”
For some reason, I doubt that this ever happened. Nervous women on first dates don't just fall asleep.
Now, she could have been drugged, in which case the person who did it, should be legally tried, convicted, and put in jail.
“They have a lot of pain,” she admitted, “but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it [i.e., a false accusation of rape] initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”
If you accuse a person of something he or she didn't do, there is a big chance that person will become anti-social.
The problem with the hyperfeminist #metoo was that people were getting attacked and couldn't defend themselves. They were hung by the outrage mob and even if they were found legally innocent, the damage was done.
What the #metoo movement did was set back male/female relations by a hundred and twenty years. No man will go near a woman who he thinks will accuse him of rape or assault. Men tell their sons to be careful and avoid any situation that could get them accused.
Men and boys choose to stay away from women and before you know it, the sexes won't even congregate.
Congratulations, you've destroyed civilization. Trust broken can never be repaired and/or replaced.
I thought the same thing about the sleeping rape victim.
The last thing I ever felt like doing, if I were with a man I was not quite comfortable with was fall asleep! And can you picture the mechanics of it all? The exceedingly nervous woman, exhausted from all the tension, I suppose (there is no mention of being drugged) finally falls asleep. Then the man takes her by the shoulders and leans her back on the couch. She doesn't stir. Then, very carefully, so as not to waken her, he removes her clothing. She is still in dreamland. Very gently, he climbs on top of her and ... all this time, she is sawing logs, unaware of what's going on. Something doesn't quite add up.
Yet such stories are presented for our belief on a regular basis in order to stir up outrage against men.
Exactly, also "I was drugged" is the new way of feigning rape. MOST drug taking between the genders is consensual, in the event of those rare cases where someone was slipped a mickey, that needs to be proven with a hospital visit, a toxicology report, and a credible account showing that it wasn't consensual drug taking as in SEX DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL
For counterpoint, I suggest a listen to the fabulous Everly Brothers hit single, "Wake up, Little Suzie," a tale of the travails of two teenage lovebirds whose promise to have Suzie "home by 10" went awry when, mirabile dictu! they fell asleep at the drive-in. From a personal point of view, I recall my first "real" date at age 16. I had my date home by eleven o'clock, then stayed at her house through the early morning hours because I was so thrilled to have a girl actually spend time with me that I did not want the evening to end. Of course, my parents were rather nonplussed about my behavior and a certain price was paid, so I did not repeat that behavior. But that was when the world and I were young, a long, long time ago. Based on the radical difference in today's society from the one in which I grew up, one could almost add, "and a galaxy far, far away."
To say more about that woman's claim, remember what the article's writer said about men's attitudes: "men complain it is hard to prevent a crime they can’t define...men say date rape is a concept invented by women who like to tease but not take the consequences...men say it is women’s unconscious reaction to the excesses of the sexual revolution.” Are we really to believe that many men think that sexually violating a sleeping woman isn't rape? That they would have trouble defining it as a crime?
Of course not. No decent man would think it ok to have sex with a sleeping woman, especially one they didn't know well. Very few men, as far as I can tell from speaking to friends, are the least bit interested in raping/having sex with someone who is asleep. What's the point?
Attempting to wake up one's beloved with kisses and caresses is a different thing, of course, but nobody decent would try it with a near-stranger.
In such situations it's also possible to fall asleep before and during sex as well as after. (Well, it is for women, can't speak for men!) and for neither parties to have clear recollection of what happened.
Reading this, there is little wonder that the Western Society as we know it, is doomed. What will come after is anyone's guess, but taking a page from George Orwell, totalitarianism is a distinct possibility.
The Greek play, Lysistrata is perhaps the first documented evidence of sexual coercion by women.
The interesting paradox is that in this century women are complaining that men are not approaching them and research demonstrates that at least 80% of the female gender want men, to make the first overt moves and initiate everything from asking out for a date, to sexual initiation.
Another part of the paradox is that most feminists would not have been born if the current climate of hostility towards the heterosexual male gender was present last century.
Another conundrum. The world of feminism is full of paradoxa due to the fact that men treating women/feminists well is the very thing enabling feminists to claim men treat them badly. It's a joke, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Well said. If it were really a brutal patriarchy, women's demands for education, the vote, professional opportunities, and special protections would have been utterly disregarded.
In the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, the signatories claimed that the entire history of humankind was the history of "repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." And 32 men signed the declaration! What were they thinking?
Thomas Ellis in his book "The Rantings of a Single Male: Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness" mentions how he was rewarded amorously by his feminist partner at the time.
It is a form of manipulation. Feminists by making the claim that the patriarchy (Men) have treated women poorly, guilt trips men into trying to prove that they are not treating women poorly.
It's similar to being in a relationship where one partner says "You don't love me" and the other partner spends enormous amounts of energy trying to prove that they do love their partner, but that is never good enough.
These are the same women who are cheering on men in dresses 👗.. as they overtake & erase everything women have worked for …
I watched the series on Playboy & Hugh Hefner. It was horrible for the women who suffered real sexual abuse but the idiots who were claiming they had FUN & got $$$.. but now years later they were educated & that wasn’t what really happened.. instead they had been groomed & abused & had no options … they were never locked in & many many left .. its awful that young women are taught this crap 💩
Here in the UK its abundantly clear that feminists have absolutely no actual interest in the 20,000 victims of actual rape gangs, white vulnerable girls and young women (and some boys actually) nor in fact their Muslim "sisters" . I don't think they want to import the men either. It's just that their solely concerned with their white upper and upper middle class world and simply can't be bothered.
Yeah, there's a conundrum. Possibly the last true mystery of the cosmos. A few years ago, Lauren Southern went to a slut walk and asked "Feminism or Islam?". That simple question was enough to overload the circuits of most activists.
Excellent post Janice. It's a great assemblage of the ways that feminists have weaponized gynocentrism. This is a major reason that men don't fight back against their crazy man-hating ideas. I'm working on a post now about the different ways they have accomplished this. Maybe we could do a vid on this?
In truth in fact it is the case that it is generally men who impliment "their crazy man hating ideas" and the immensely successful tool has been "Violence Against Women and Girls". Because it turns out men, certainly the men in positions of power and influence, are easily goaded into doing almost any mad thing if it's to save women and girls from "violence". We think that the language is "violence" is new, but way in the late 1960s I and my peers were taught not only never hit a girl but also never use bad language in front of them or shout or be "loud". And this was axiomatic in a working class suburb of an industrial city, not "Downton Abbey". The reality is feminists have used "gentlemen" to do their bidding. It is only very recently women have appeared in any numbers in our corridors of power. This may be different in the USA, but in the UK the truth is its men who have done this on behalf of "wimmin". It is the proof that "the patriarchy" didn't exist.
Yes, exactly. Gynocentrism moves men to do for women. I can't think of a country where it doesn't exist. The latest precarious manhood research seems to confirm this.
"Weaponized gynocentrism", great phrase. But Collins / Bradford points to an important reason: that men don't have strong in-group preferences. That's what allows their gynocentrism to be hijacked.
Yes, men's testosterone pushes them to defend their own status but not the status of other men (the competitors) unless they are on the same team. Men do have an in-group bias but it is not like women's which is for their sex, men's in-group bias is for their own team.
Meanwhile it seems the Biden Admin is going back to college rape accusation is proof that it happened, and the men have no right to question their accusers.
Feminism also taught that female freedom requires casual sex and promiscuity, so it would seem that is a classic case of wanting the cake and to eat it too.
That said, any man who forces himself on a woman is not a real man.
The final sentence is the power feminists have keyed into successfully for over 100 years at least. The suffragettes here in the UK realised this with the public reaction to photos of burley policemen restraining "ladies". Whereas their bombing campaign backfired the ide of ladies being force fed or restrained soon got the white knights going. Since then the "wife beater" and "rapist" has always been pivotal. In the early 80s my future sister in law was one of the wimmin at greenham common (protesting American cruise missiles) and one of their explicit tactics was to goad the police into moving them physically, because they knew the press would cast them as damsels in distress. The truth is they long ago got clever and in a "man's world" the trick is to get men to decide your enemies are not being proper men. It really is the irony of "toxic masculinity" that in fact feminists rely on masculine men to do their bidding. If men weren't in general "real men" then they'd not give a fig about women's safely and security, and the huge edifice built on tackling VAWG would not exist.
"Feminism also taught that female freedom requires casual sex and promiscuity, so it would seem that is a classic case of wanting the cake and to eat it too. "
Indeed. Feminists in several nations have protested against their governments' proposal of gender neutral rape laws. In each instance the governments caved in. In essence said feminist and womens' groups were protesting for the right to commit rape. I guess it's OK when they do it.
I have been in communication with Rick Bradford, a.k.a. William Collins, and he notes that from his research, he estimates that the real false allegation rate (not the number proved false through police investigation) is likely to be far greater than the 10 percent figure, probably greater than 50 percent.
Part of the problem here is that much of the popular media and even politicians don't understand the actual law. So an awful lot of accusations go nowhere because in fact no crime was committed, a lot because no one involved can actually remember anything and a lot because having consensual sex and regretting later isn't actually a crime. A really common one is where the young woman has lied about her age. Basically the police get a huge deluge of stuff based on feminist propaganda in the media, not actually what is in law criminal. Rape is bandied about as a term but is has a specific meaning in our law. One huge problem is our "criminal injuries compensation" scheme. Supposedly to help the victims of violent crimes in general, under feminist pressure rape and sexual assaults are the only crimes where the complainant gets compensation (about £10,000 now) irrespective of a conviction or even going to court. All it needs is a "crime number" from the Police, they don't even have to investigate it! Perverse incentive exemplified!
Yes, criminal injuries compensation is an amazing incentive!
Perhaps if men falsely accused also got compensation there might be some public education warning women not to make false accusations.
I would estimate that a criminal penalty for false accusation would be a pretty good deterrent, and it wouldn't have to be much, say six months mandatory incarceration, with no option for suspended sentence.
Of course, the problem is that intimate contact, whether consensual or not, usually only involves the two people in attendance, so proof would be difficult, but just the threat would be stultifying for the false accuser.
I wonder if it's a British thing not to talk about money. Another good example is "legal aid" basically where the state pays for your lawyer. This was available in "family court" proceedings, but some years ago was withdrawn..... except where there were accusations of domestic abuse. Research a couple of years later (because the legal aid bill had not gone down) found that the expected savings had not been realised because half the cases before family court now included an accusation of domestic abuse. This was a massive leap from the 10% that the savings had been calculated. The ministry of justice report even said it was evident some solicitors firms were advising clients to make the claim to get gov. funds. Of course nothing much was done. And now well over half include accusation. Again all that is needed is an accusation, no proof or investigation. Here such obvious perverse incentoves caused by access to state largess never seem to cause any actual action. Because, it seems, the ones abusing the system are female in the main. Even worse in a recent research it was found some men collude with this as it reduces their costs, because otherwise they may have to pay the "ex's" legal Bill's!
So funding, not reality, means we have an "epidemic" of domestic abuse in family court cases to do with child custody proceedings.
I like that MEN are starting to sue accusers. I don't see this going anywhere but it's a good start.
Not on Record a YouTube channel where lawyers discuss legal issues in Canada, had a section of their YouTube video removed when they estimated the number of times false allegations are made. They talk about conducting research into the rates of false allegations.
I’m afraid the ‘idiot allegations’ are what really counts. False allegations are when nothing happened, when the two maybe even didn’t meet that night, outright lies. ‘Idiot allegations’ are about sex or intimacy the woman feels ashamed of afterwards, didn’t like as much as she expected, feels the initiative of the men was too one-sided, doesn’t want to admit her agency for herself and her friends because she doesn’t want to feel like a slut and ‘this was crap, ok, next time better’ feels so slutty. There’s a Belgian book, ‘Valse zeden’, that’s all about this. (There are actually quite a few good antifeminist books in Dutch, especially from the 1980, by quite well-known authors. They should be translated, but I’m afraid they aren’t even reprinted now.)
MaoToo
More like Jiang QuingToo.
👻😂😈
In The Myth of Male Power (1993), Warren Farrell references a U.S. Air Force investigation of 556 cases of alleged rape, in which 60% were shown to be false, and a follow-up study of the police records of two "major cities" that showed the same result. Of course none of these studies were ever published, for fear of political repercussions. And this was more than 30 years ago.
Yes, this was also on discovery channel with Sam Donaldson back in the 1990's. The Airforce told Sam Donaldson that 60% of rape allegations in the military are FALSE. And only those where the accusers admitted they lied were counted! 'Victoria Toensing said: "That doesn't sound right" "That can't be right" So here again fe-MALE sensibilities out powers the truth.
I would add to that an estimate I have made of the rate of false allegations of domestic abuse in the family courts in England & Wales, which is 60% or more. (Details available in my recent book, The Illustrated Empathy Gap - shameless plug!).
Hi Rick. I really struggle to locate your book when searching online (surprise surprise). I have searched a few times in the past and always seem to get redirected- sometimes to pro feminist books with very similar titles. Is there a reliable source I can use to find your book?
On Amazon.com The Empathy Gap (2019) is here https://tinyurl.com/2wfet649. I apologise for the paperback price but near 700 pages doesn't come cheap. However, there is a kindle version for $5.99. The new book, The Illustrated Empathy Gap is here https://tinyurl.com/yh7uxhw6. Another 700 pages so also pricy. No ebook as yet. The two books do not duplicate.
Considering that that single digit rape cases get convicted per year, it's probably somewhere around 80% honestly.
97% of rape claims are FALSE according to John Davis international prosecutor and MEN'S advocate
According to international prosecutor and Gender studies for MEN advocate John Davis: 97% of rape claims are FALSE. According to the John Davis graph:
3% convictions... 2% acquitted... 12% admitted false... 83% no probable cause
And let's not forget to mention that the descriptions of sexual assault etc. have been expanded to inclusive things which are not sexual or not assault.
I've known women who have actually been assaulted, seriously assaulted. They usually don't even talk about it because it is so traumatizing. They often don't want to go through the legal process, they just want to get away from it. I suppose they might have been lying, but I don't think so. They had no reason to do so.
Makes me wonder if the assault allegations made publicly are quite likely to be false, and that a lot more assault happens than we realize, because it never gets talked about. Guys who get assaulted in prison never talk about it, in the main. It is too humiliating and painful to remember.
That’s highly believable.
Each and every day as the evidence piles up I am more convinced that I want nothing to do with ANY Western woman. Although it looks like my bloodline ends here, the risk of doing something about it just not worth it.
I laugh out loud at the "boss babes" and "We don't need no man" crowd. Really, Karen? Look around you. You will be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING that keeps you alive or in comfort that wasn't invented, built, and CURRENTLY maintained by a man, including the powerlines that bring the electrons for your use online in denigrating those same men.
It's over, girls. You're not remotely worth the risk. Until they get sex robots perfected, I'll go my own way, thankyouverymuch. And when they do, there won't be a married man in the country. I'm sorry, Janice - you are clearly a unicorn, so all is not lost - but certainly it is for me ....
Agree. Over and over I sense that Western women look upon men as dogs in need of training. I can also sense that they absolutely hate it when you refuse to be trained.
Yeah, my wife told me, "Either the airplane and motorcycle go or I go."
That was my first wife.
Why did you bother with the 2nd? LOL
Slow learner.
Well said.
So one can appreciate why the feminist hordes really lose their shit over the MGTOW movement or the Passport Bros trend.
As Jim Wills above states, dealing with these miserable hags (and haggettes) just isn’t worth it.
This aberration (among women of the West) will not change in the lifetime of any man over the age of 50. If we survive the political upheavals coming this summer and fall, it will come to an end when young women become aware of how bitter and angry their unmarried aunts, mothers and their friends, crazy cat women all, are!
It is then and only then that they will start to ask themselves the question’s starting with this one. ‘My Gd what have we done to ourselves’
I don't really view them as "hags" at all; I have known several very fine women in my lifetime - my accountant, Sandy, case in point. Quiet, thoughtful, soft-spoken but razor-sharp in corporate meetings and always - always - on my side. If I were looking for a partner, she would be precisely the one. Dead now from cancer.
Many, many fine women - especially the ones in my high school class. At reunions I see them, still married to the same Really Good Guys, and 1971 was a long time ago.
But what I see of the modern younger ones on TikTok and YouTube, God! Tatted-up, hog-ringed, many ADMITTING to body counts in the mid-three-digits, but proud of it! Totally delusional about what marriage means. There's a third rail if I ever saw one.
My nephew is near my age and lost his wife three years ago. (How careless of him!) Anyway, he tried the U.S. dating apps. OMG. He has everything to offer: debt-free, amiable, retired with no children, good with money and has plenty of it. Except he's 5'6". Not a single "swipe-right." I had a divorced friend who went to the Philippines with a mission group, found a lovely traditional Filipina, and married her. Happy as a clam. I connected him with my nephew and now HE is marrying a Filipina! Should I ever lose my mind and look for a female human, that's where I'll go.
Perhaps I should have qualified the ‘hags’remark. It’s true, there were many fine women prior to the official advent of the ‘feminist revolution’. I married one and we were together for 52 years. My comment was more reflective of the type of western female who was brought up under the various waves of feminism since.
Understood, and unfortunately, concur.
Chuck an even WORSE phenomenon is 'Christian' wo-MEN losing their shit over MEN going their own way. All of Twitter is a parade of FAKE Christian wo-MEN trying to SHAME MEN for not wanting to marry. The modern church seems to confuse wo-MEN's security is a barometer for morality, more so than scripture. Pearl Davis is a gem IMOP, as she rails against the modern church and what she calls trad/CON/ 'Christian fEMINISTS' As a believer myself, I can tell you Pearl is right when she says MOST "Christian' wo-MEN are NO different than fEMINISTS
You wouldn't be referring to Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, by chance? I enjoyed them for a time, but the preaching and lecturing about Red Pill men got a little old I don't watch them anymore. Glad they're happily (maybe?) married, but it doesn't always work out for everyone, and it's not always the man exclusively to blame.
Them, and many others including Jordan PETER PAN. Tucker Carlson as well. These types want MEN to FIX everything wo-MEN'S liberation broke. MANY of these 'Christian fEMINISTS' want to retain the license fEMINISM gave them while holding MEN to biblical roles, but not themselves.
"Until they get sex robots perfected"
It's not too long ago Aussie nutcase Clementine Ford was in the media railing about such devices. Meanwhile women have had the equivalent of sex robots available since the late Victorian era.
The "toy" world is quite interesting at the moment. It seems men are looking for something resembling an entire woman whilst women will reduce it all down to an appendage alone which doesn't even need to resemble anything human. I believe various animal versions are all the rage now.
My ex-wife had a small online publishing company - defunct now - that produced exclusively "Mommy porn," and I would occasionally edit a book or two. Women have always consumed this stuff to some degree, disguised in the old days as "romance magazines." In those times the racier passages were couched in euphemism and innuendo lest the Postal Inspector get involved.
Fast forward to the Sexual Revolution of the 'sixties and 'seventies. Women's attraction to the idea of "being overpowered" - rape-fantasy really - led to the Bodice-Ripper genre, with lusty pirates and no-nonsense spanking cowboys - who would occasionally toss the haughty lass across the saddle for a dose of the horse's reins across her bare backside - coming into fashion, but of course the public could see by the book cover exactly what you were reading.
Then came the Kindle, and the whole genre was blown wide open. Men, more visual, generally don't buy "romance" books. In my wife's company, around 98% of Mommy Porn was written by women and 99% consumed by them, with a high percentage of sales going to other authors! Books could be uploaded, transmitted, and received in anonymity. And read. When you are sitting on the beach with your Kindle or iPad, nobody has the slightest clew what you're reading. Combine this with the feminist era, where women are encouraged to behave sexually like men, and violà! A new industry.
Men tend to live in their hands - and their cranks; they don't read this stuff. Women live in their heads. With all the stops pulled, anything goes now: Wolf sex. Sex with aliens, who have all sorts of, ahem, advantages that normal men don't have. Forced pregnancy (breeding fantasy) is popular - especially with those well-advantaged aliens. It's a bloody free-for-all.
And of course this leads to interesting toys to fuel those fantasies. If you want a little entertainment, look up the offerings from bad-dragon.com. It would appear that horses are quite the rage this year .... LOL.
Yes, I was alluding to bad dragon actually. It may interest you to know the band Steely Dan was named after a steam powered dildo which featured in William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch". These machines were all the rage in the late Victorian era. I'm also very suspicious about what Cleopatra was actually doing with her asps.
I'm a big fan of Steely Dan's and actually knew that. I'm a wellspring of useless information. Know where ZZ Top's name came from? How about Led Zeppelin? REO Speedwagon? My aunt serendipitously mentioned that her father once owned an .... wait for it.... Reo Speedwagon. Made by Diamond Reo.
Here's one hardly anybody knows; I'm not sure you can even look it up: Marshall Tucker.... no, I was wrong; Grok knows, at least. I heard it on an old rock 'n roll show at least thirty years ago.
**********
addendum: I consulted the great oracle at Grok and was assured that Decent female sex robots were 1-2 years away, and Quite Good in 3-5. Grok says this is not general public knowledge, but advances are being made rapidly. I live in a college town, and God, you wouldn't believe the coeds walking the streets here. They say engineers use their personalities for birth control; nubile girls in their teens and twenties are now using tats and hog rings. When a 71-year-old man says, "no way," it's bad. Really bad. I think a dose of that stuff and a drink of water would probably kill you.
If they ever invent the Cherry 2000 it will be the greatest step forward for human civilization since the Neolithic revolution.
When I was a teenaged minor I was forced by my mother to play Gigolo to this flat chested female U of O student who looked like she had down syndrome ( it was a small town and they got the local martial arts instructors to beat me up until I went along with it).
The none sense that would come out of the mouths of her and her friends was staggering. I still remember one of her 23 year old friends saying " Christen has been raped dozens of times. She neve says no to a guy she likes".
That sounds like a real intriguing story.
Considering google Gemini, all the sexbots will probably have blue hair and an attitude to match.
That's why God created paper bags.
FAKE Christian wo-MEN are 'WORSE' than fEMINISTS. They are taking the lords name in vain by portraying themselves as Christians and trying to shame MEN into marrying even though the Apostle Paul said: "It is better 'not' to marry"
Another excellent article. I am so tired of seeing and hearing women go on and on about men and everything wrong, bad or evil being their fault. How about acting like adults, accepting some responsibility and realising there are two sides to every story before getting out the pitchforks and torches. Look around as there is a hell of a lot of good in this world courtesy of men. All this constant and increasing negativity and condemnation is not good for children especially the males as pointed out in one of Janice’s recent articles.
I had to chuckle every time I saw a reference to a woman (feminist or otherwise) claiming that #MeToo was some sort of opportunity for the country to have a “frank” discussion about sex.
The outward facade/implication of a balanced, fair, nuanced discussion is just adorable.
This must be the way men feel when their significant other tells them, “We need to talk.” In reality, it’s more like, “We need to talk…about all the things YOU’RE doing wrong.”
Any truly “frank” discussion about sex between men and women would be at least half dedicated to women’s responsibilities as they pertain to sex, as well as their pathological tendency to exploit and/or manipulate men using it.
I won’t hold my breath on that occurring…
At the end of the day, I think women are keenly aware (on some level of consciousness) that their biggest “trump cards” in life are 1) sex and 2) victimhood.
Sexuality isn’t a woman’s only value, but it is, I would argue, her greatest source of power and influence. Nothing else on earth moves the proverbial needle more than that. Victimhood is a close-ish, but definite second place.
Mind you, I don’t think that that is necessarily women’s fault. Like any other power, it’s not about whether it’s possessed, but rather how it’s wielded.
I think that the reason why most men have such a visceral, enraged reaction to the idea of a woman being raped and those who perpetrate it is because it essentially combines those two elements of sex and victimhood.
A man is essentially stealing sex by victimizing women.
Women recognize this. The less morally-scrupulous among them will use it to their benefit, which is why false accusations of sexual assault/rape are as powerful as they are, and why women will fight tooth and nail to retain and augment the absurdly one-sided advantage they possess when it comes to all matters of sex, irrespective of the chaos and injustice left in their wake.
As with most any other facet of life, people generally operate based upon incentive(s), or a lack thereof. As long as the potential benefits of making a false accusation outweigh the potential consequences (as they currently do), you can expect them to continue unabated.
"...don’t think that that is necessarily women’s fault."
Absolutely symbiotic.
Yes wo-MEN are at fault. To say otherwise is to deny wo-MEN having agency. I will say MEN are also guilty of allowing wo-MEN to rule.
I think that there’s been a misunderstanding. Allow me to elaborate/clarify.
When I say that sexuality and victimhood are a woman’s two biggest trump cards and/or sources of power in life, and that I don’t necessarily fault them for that, I’m referring to the innate sexual value they hold (and men’s innate sex drive), as well as their innate value in the reproductive equation (and men’s resulting inclination to protect them from harm).
In other words, when it comes to their sexuality, the fact that they were born with something that most men greatly desire and relentlessly pursue is not their fault, and I can’t take them to task for merely existing with a vagina.
Similarly, when it comes to victimhood, I can’t fault them for merely existing in (and being the beneficiaries of) a world where men possess and act on a protection instinct for them. They didn’t instill men’s innate protective instinct for them any more than they instilled men’s innate sexual desire for them.
- Now, with that being said -
I ABSOLUTELY fault them for the amoral, shameless, and flagrant ways in which they have (and do) exploit their sexuality to solicit attention, enrich themselves and manipulate men.
I COMPLETELY fault them for the amoral, shameless, and flagrant ways in which they have (and do) exploit alleged victimhood to enrich themselves, manipulate and hurt men, and elicit sympathy and praise from the populace.
The ways in which they play on both men’s innate desire for them and desire to keep them safe and free from harm are morally bankrupt and ethically repugnant.
They are indisputably, undeniably, and completely at fault for these things.
As I said in my initial post, it’s not about merely possessing power, but rather about how that power is used.
Weapons are completely benign and powerless in the hands of individuals who have no intention of using them for illicit and/or amoral purposes.
AGREED!
This is a brilliant and much needed piece. Exploring all perspectives is the only pathway to understanding. This issue exists in family court matters too where women make astoundingly brutal and false accusations to get what they want. It happened to a friend of mine. He never recovered from the assault on his character by a woman who was once deeply in love with him. He died on the end of a knife held by a drug addicted stripper he had been in a relationship with, the end of his self degrading journey to the bottom.
I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. His is a story that shows how much cruelty can be done in the name of aiding people who are cast as defenseless victims who are not required to take responsibility and back up their claims.
I learned an interesting fact not long ago. In the Philippines, not only does filing for divorce not guarantee getting a divorce, but their courts can declare one of the parties divorced and able to remarry, while the other partner is legally unable to remarry.
This led me to ponder the question of the suddenly vast number of allegedly brutal wife and child-abusing husbands (whose offensive behavior is unnoticed for years or decades, when someone wants to trade in the relationship for cash & property). The women who would divorce such monsters would be releasing abusive monsters to do the same to other women. If a woman were only divorcing because she truly received violence she never returned, she could prevent him doing it to anyone else via legal separation. But if she wants her "freedom" and doesn't give a thought to the harm women he might meet in future, what does that make her? Of course, if all this violence against wives & kids is just made up to secure a fatter divorce settlement, there would be no reason to worry about any subsequent wives.
It's remarkably similar to how women who claim rape happened years or decades ago would have been allowing their attackers to be free to attack other women, until suddenly, society is expected to punish the man without all the pesky investigation and examination of evidence.
Wow, I had no idea about the Philippines. Have you written on this topic, or are you going to? I have some friends who are seriously considering the Philippines as a place to try to start a family with a more traditionally-oriented woman. They would be very interested to learn about the divorce laws in that country.
As for the argument about women not caring about other women, yes--but all that is covered, supposedly, by the terrible trauma allegedly suffered, which prevents prompt and logical action.
We had a situation here in Australia in the 80s-90s, where a number of men would look to the Philippines for a bride.
They would get married, buy a house, have a child and wait 2 years for their permanent residency to be granted. Then one day whilst the husband is at work, they would file for a divorce, at the same time claiming to be victims of DV restraining order and change the locks on the house.
It was happening on a semi regular basis, enough to notice that the plan was for residency, to have a home and ditch the guy.. It got to a point after a few years, the government introduced a little something that the women had to prove their genuine marital intentions, or be deported back..
Eventually though, interest in Pilipino brides began to wane, mostly in favour of other Asian nationals that were actually more genuine.
Marrying Asian women over western women comes with its risks too. Once these girls can smell the money you're in for some trouble.
Not all of them are like that though. Probably a relative minority, but it is hard to tell who is genuine and who is a gold digger until everything hits the fan.
The story where I learned about Philippine divorce law was similar, but with an American guy. But because they'd tied the knot in the Philippines, not the US, the chick did not get away with it, and she is forbidden from remarrying within the Philippines.
I learned this earlier this year from a video about an American guy who married a Philippino woman. As I recall, after a short time, she she became demanding about how he should spend money on her and her relatives. He had luckily married her in the Philippines, not the US, which is why he was able to divorce her there. I hadn't thought about writing about Philippine marriage law or this guy's story, but perhaps it would be a service to men who think a Philippino bride is an easy answer. The situation that men who'd make great family men find themselves in these days is absolutely horrific. (I'll see if I can track down the video, my first guess turned up nothing. Have to see how far back my history goes...)
Oh, right, the trauma card. No need to have any compassion for anyone but oneself ):
Sounds like Susan Wright. She was a stripper.
Or, for that matter, how many lynchings of black men occurred due to false allegations by women? Emmett Till wasn't accused of rape, only "wolf whistling" at a white woman, but the result was the same. Especially in the South, every black man knew the danger and every white woman her power.
One of the only things that will reliably flummox a woke feminist ideolgue is when they begin waxing eloquent about Emmet Till's innocence and you ask them "But what about 'believe all women'."They're also not happy hearing that Till's father was convicted for raping and murdering a woman while stationed in France during WWII.
A couple of years ago I found a site that listed all the known deaths by lynchings etc during a decade of that period. It listed the reason. I counted them over 60% were accusation of rape of a white woman another 15% were disrespecting or harassing a white woman. No doubt mostly untrue but a clear demonstration of the power of accusation to mobilise other men against the accused.
Wow, I'd love to see that site. Can you send a link or perhaps a search term?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lynching_victims_in_the_United_States
I think it was this one though there are other listings
I was thinking the same thing Robert. So true. A woman's word has long been a potential danger.
For an example of this, and the impunity of the lying cunt (who eventually admitted culpability, and died unpunished) see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till?wprov=sfti1#
Just remember this was a 14-year-old boy tortured, and murdered on the unsupported, and false, word of an evil sow, using the prejudices of the day to exercise feminine power.
There's a lot more to the Till story than is contained in Wikipedia, here's a brief overview:
https://www.bristolblog.com/news2/till.htm
Carolyn Bryant denied recanting to author Timothy Tyson, and while he made recordings of interviews with her, he has never released any recording of her recanting and has made inconsistent statements about whether he did or did not record her recanting. The Justice Dept. refused to indict herhttps://www.crimeonline.com/2022/08/09/grand-jury-wont-charge-accuser-carolyn-bryant-donham-in-emmett-tills-1955-slaying/
Black men were the canaries in the mine.
What's "funny" is that if traditional Christian morality were upheld as the standard, most of these problems would fall away. Women wouldn't be falling asleep on strange men's shoulders on the first date. Men who have women fall asleep on them would know that that isn't an invitation to go for sex. Girls wouldn't be getting plastered at frat parties. People would know on a gut-level that the biological purpose of sex is babies, and social expectations would honor that fact. A patriarchy that respects women, that honors Mary as the greatest of God's creatures, would be in place. Each sex wouldn't have to imagine the other sex imagining them as nothing but f***-objects because minds wouldn't be saturated in porn. Etc. The world needs Christ.
The problems continue past the hook up culture today's young people inhabit. All the activities that could be put under the umbrella of "serial monogamy" - multiple sex partners, living together, easy divorce/multiple marriages are demonstrably incompatible with human nature just by observing the results. There's no such a thing as a mutual break up, one partner wants out (at least in the moment, divorce regret is not insignificant). Once the feeling of being part of a couple is established, it never goes away. Neither wants to see the other with a new partner. The conflict between exes and with exes new partners is inevitable. Jealousy is a powerful force that modern people seem to ignore. Also, weirdly, with non-marital sex, easy divorce and polyamory accepted by society, there's more cheating, not less. One marriage for life is so much more compatible with human nature.
About half of today's children are products of not just broken homes, but repeatedly broken homes, by parents who split up before they're born, and those who have a series of partners while their kids are growing up.
"Neither wants to see the other with a new partner."
Not true! My wife left me for one of my mates, and apart from the initial shock I couldn't have been happier. My only regret is that I never thanked him for taking her off my hands. Six months later she wanted to come back, and I refused. So she stayed with him, much to my relief!
For “parents” read “mothers.”
Claims about (a singular) human nature are difficult. Both biology and culture are flexible, and both co-determine human nature. Variability is a fundamental feature of the human species.
Biology is a lot less flexible than people are currently encouraged to believe, and culture, like all human behavior, is deeply rooted in biology.
HALF true. The modern church is gynocentric as you seem to be as well. As Paul Elam has pointed out: Jesus rejected the worship of wo-MEN. When a wo-MAN said to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you" Jesus said: "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear & do the word of God" wo-MEN are no more special than MEN. Also, many of God's prophets had multiple wives & even slave girls, I believe the Apostle Paul admitted he fornicated, my point is morality is good, BUT it can't be selective. That is put on MEN but not wo-MEN.
In the UK as the Sexual Offences Bill was being debated (it became the Act, a law in England and Wales 2003). A part of the debate in Parliament and in the media was about terminology. With even some feminist Barristers arguing for "Sexual Assault" to be used consistently for the various clauses. On two grounds: One that modernising the law should mean doing away with Victorian notions of sex being "sacred" and women in particular being pure. Two: was the more practical thing that juries would be less likely to convict when faced with two drunken people having sex recreationally when the crime wasn't described as Rape which the public understood as including violent assault. Indeed some argued that doing away with the emotive term "Rape" would help convictions because it would better focus on consent. However many feminists and "white knights" piled in on the shear heinousness of "such men" and the Act was passed with the word Rape used for one of the listed sexual assaults "penetration" with a penis or object. I mention this because what was very evident is that the feminists were really keen to be old fashioned in terminology because the cry "Rape" transcends any reasoned discussion and actually produces hoards of white knights long conditioned to step in to save delicate women, and support feminist "solutions".
Of course what this showed was there is no "condoning" of "rape" in our culture (it had been in our law since Alfred the Great) but the reverse, that it is something that will mark the accused as beyond the pale of society and masculinity. Hence it was always a "capital" crime with severe consequences. From a time where any sex outside marriage and procreation was morally unacceptable! Recently our society has "modernised" in its sexual attitudes, the sexual revolution, and now sex is simply a healthy expression of human urges to be enjoyed as a health giving activity frequently and without guilt. Juries quite reasonably need to be very convinced that the drunken post party one night stands they are asked to judge, was serious enough to warrant years in prison for a man. Mercifully often they are not so persuaded "beyond reasonable doubt ", not because of "myths" but the difficuly of deciding if a coupling was a capital crime where frequent and promiscuous couplings are now a normalised.
A few years ago Germain Greer returned to this by saying that it should be just "sexual assault" and the sentences include just fines, because it was clear that it made no sense to advocate free love and celebrate "sluts" and treat drunken ungentlemanly behaviour as a capital crime. Cue a pile on , and recantation.
So the feminists prove the falsity of their claims by the fact they definitely don't want to modernise, because crying "Rape" is such a powerful leverage to get men on their side! After all "two young students got drunk, had sex, can't remember much and regret it" has less leverage.
Well said. Sex is simply a recreational activity until the woman decides it isn't, and then it is a very serious thing with grave, possibly lifelong, emotional and psychological consequences. It is ludicrous to accept that 'consent' covers it all.
Very well put. Feminism has all the consistency of sludge.
And yet so see-through - when you take the trouble to really look
Long before the Duke lacrosse case of 2006, there was the case of Adam Lack at Brown University in Providence RI, back in the late 90s. His case presaged what was to come with MeToo some 20 years later. Little has been written about what happened to Adam, and how his life was ruined by a false accusation after consensual sex in his dorm room, and how the feminist mob - the student daily newspaper with apparent collusion by the university administration - forced him to leave school. I can fill you in on the details if you like. It didn’t get much notice outside Brown and Ivy League circles, but there was some local press coverage as I recall.
Very interested, please. The problem with so many of these cases is how little coverage they receive, how hard it is to access the records, and how reluctant the male victim is to speak about what happened to him.
A friend and I were just discussing Catherine Comins' role at Vassar from 1989-1991 and how interesting it would be to look into the cases she adjudicated. But I suspect it would be extremely difficult to find the evidence.
It puzzles me that a false accusation is not yet acknowledged as a crime worse than the purported crime.
It’s also a civil offense. I’d be fascinated to see a demonstrated false accuser facing a trial for defamation.
It is, but perjury charges are rarely applied to sexual assault allegations.
A female civil court judge ignores the only two male eye witnesses to an alleged sexual assault by a supervisor accused by a young casual staff member with a history of recalcitrance and insolence.
It was a die cast when the female union rep began the session with "we believe all women."
The worker go her money, and the accused, a father and husband, had his career and life permanently tainted by a criminal charge in a civil court, where "balance of probabilities" gave the (later "retired" judge an easy way to satisfy her ideological bent. All others involved were also damaged by an obviously lying young scoundrel.
In one, we learn of a woman who, nervous on a first date, rather inexplicably fell asleep with her head on the man’s shoulder and “woke up to find him on top of me, forcing himself on me.”
For some reason, I doubt that this ever happened. Nervous women on first dates don't just fall asleep.
Now, she could have been drugged, in which case the person who did it, should be legally tried, convicted, and put in jail.
“They have a lot of pain,” she admitted, “but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it [i.e., a false accusation of rape] initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”
If you accuse a person of something he or she didn't do, there is a big chance that person will become anti-social.
The problem with the hyperfeminist #metoo was that people were getting attacked and couldn't defend themselves. They were hung by the outrage mob and even if they were found legally innocent, the damage was done.
What the #metoo movement did was set back male/female relations by a hundred and twenty years. No man will go near a woman who he thinks will accuse him of rape or assault. Men tell their sons to be careful and avoid any situation that could get them accused.
Men and boys choose to stay away from women and before you know it, the sexes won't even congregate.
Congratulations, you've destroyed civilization. Trust broken can never be repaired and/or replaced.
I thought the same thing about the sleeping rape victim.
The last thing I ever felt like doing, if I were with a man I was not quite comfortable with was fall asleep! And can you picture the mechanics of it all? The exceedingly nervous woman, exhausted from all the tension, I suppose (there is no mention of being drugged) finally falls asleep. Then the man takes her by the shoulders and leans her back on the couch. She doesn't stir. Then, very carefully, so as not to waken her, he removes her clothing. She is still in dreamland. Very gently, he climbs on top of her and ... all this time, she is sawing logs, unaware of what's going on. Something doesn't quite add up.
Yet such stories are presented for our belief on a regular basis in order to stir up outrage against men.
Exactly, also "I was drugged" is the new way of feigning rape. MOST drug taking between the genders is consensual, in the event of those rare cases where someone was slipped a mickey, that needs to be proven with a hospital visit, a toxicology report, and a credible account showing that it wasn't consensual drug taking as in SEX DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL
For counterpoint, I suggest a listen to the fabulous Everly Brothers hit single, "Wake up, Little Suzie," a tale of the travails of two teenage lovebirds whose promise to have Suzie "home by 10" went awry when, mirabile dictu! they fell asleep at the drive-in. From a personal point of view, I recall my first "real" date at age 16. I had my date home by eleven o'clock, then stayed at her house through the early morning hours because I was so thrilled to have a girl actually spend time with me that I did not want the evening to end. Of course, my parents were rather nonplussed about my behavior and a certain price was paid, so I did not repeat that behavior. But that was when the world and I were young, a long, long time ago. Based on the radical difference in today's society from the one in which I grew up, one could almost add, "and a galaxy far, far away."
To say more about that woman's claim, remember what the article's writer said about men's attitudes: "men complain it is hard to prevent a crime they can’t define...men say date rape is a concept invented by women who like to tease but not take the consequences...men say it is women’s unconscious reaction to the excesses of the sexual revolution.” Are we really to believe that many men think that sexually violating a sleeping woman isn't rape? That they would have trouble defining it as a crime?
Of course not. No decent man would think it ok to have sex with a sleeping woman, especially one they didn't know well. Very few men, as far as I can tell from speaking to friends, are the least bit interested in raping/having sex with someone who is asleep. What's the point?
Attempting to wake up one's beloved with kisses and caresses is a different thing, of course, but nobody decent would try it with a near-stranger.
How about two drunk people fumbling about with each other on a couch or in bed? Things are seldom clear cut in these situations.
That's where it gets believable that one person might fall asleep.
In such situations it's also possible to fall asleep before and during sex as well as after. (Well, it is for women, can't speak for men!) and for neither parties to have clear recollection of what happened.
Wow, hard-hitting.
Reading this, there is little wonder that the Western Society as we know it, is doomed. What will come after is anyone's guess, but taking a page from George Orwell, totalitarianism is a distinct possibility.
The Greek play, Lysistrata is perhaps the first documented evidence of sexual coercion by women.
The interesting paradox is that in this century women are complaining that men are not approaching them and research demonstrates that at least 80% of the female gender want men, to make the first overt moves and initiate everything from asking out for a date, to sexual initiation.
Another part of the paradox is that most feminists would not have been born if the current climate of hostility towards the heterosexual male gender was present last century.
Another conundrum. The world of feminism is full of paradoxa due to the fact that men treating women/feminists well is the very thing enabling feminists to claim men treat them badly. It's a joke, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Well said. If it were really a brutal patriarchy, women's demands for education, the vote, professional opportunities, and special protections would have been utterly disregarded.
In the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, the signatories claimed that the entire history of humankind was the history of "repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." And 32 men signed the declaration! What were they thinking?
They were eyeing ally status with all its perks, perhaps?
"perks" is a subtle way of expressing it.
Thomas Ellis in his book "The Rantings of a Single Male: Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness" mentions how he was rewarded amorously by his feminist partner at the time.
It is a form of manipulation. Feminists by making the claim that the patriarchy (Men) have treated women poorly, guilt trips men into trying to prove that they are not treating women poorly.
It's similar to being in a relationship where one partner says "You don't love me" and the other partner spends enormous amounts of energy trying to prove that they do love their partner, but that is never good enough.
These are the same women who are cheering on men in dresses 👗.. as they overtake & erase everything women have worked for …
I watched the series on Playboy & Hugh Hefner. It was horrible for the women who suffered real sexual abuse but the idiots who were claiming they had FUN & got $$$.. but now years later they were educated & that wasn’t what really happened.. instead they had been groomed & abused & had no options … they were never locked in & many many left .. its awful that young women are taught this crap 💩
that’s not abuse..that’s bad choices ..
These are the same women who wish to import Muslim men, who will not respect them or their feminist ideas.
Here in the UK its abundantly clear that feminists have absolutely no actual interest in the 20,000 victims of actual rape gangs, white vulnerable girls and young women (and some boys actually) nor in fact their Muslim "sisters" . I don't think they want to import the men either. It's just that their solely concerned with their white upper and upper middle class world and simply can't be bothered.
Yeah, there's a conundrum. Possibly the last true mystery of the cosmos. A few years ago, Lauren Southern went to a slut walk and asked "Feminism or Islam?". That simple question was enough to overload the circuits of most activists.
Remember "The Princess and the Pea"?
Excellent post Janice. It's a great assemblage of the ways that feminists have weaponized gynocentrism. This is a major reason that men don't fight back against their crazy man-hating ideas. I'm working on a post now about the different ways they have accomplished this. Maybe we could do a vid on this?
In truth in fact it is the case that it is generally men who impliment "their crazy man hating ideas" and the immensely successful tool has been "Violence Against Women and Girls". Because it turns out men, certainly the men in positions of power and influence, are easily goaded into doing almost any mad thing if it's to save women and girls from "violence". We think that the language is "violence" is new, but way in the late 1960s I and my peers were taught not only never hit a girl but also never use bad language in front of them or shout or be "loud". And this was axiomatic in a working class suburb of an industrial city, not "Downton Abbey". The reality is feminists have used "gentlemen" to do their bidding. It is only very recently women have appeared in any numbers in our corridors of power. This may be different in the USA, but in the UK the truth is its men who have done this on behalf of "wimmin". It is the proof that "the patriarchy" didn't exist.
Yes, exactly. Gynocentrism moves men to do for women. I can't think of a country where it doesn't exist. The latest precarious manhood research seems to confirm this.
"Weaponized gynocentrism", great phrase. But Collins / Bradford points to an important reason: that men don't have strong in-group preferences. That's what allows their gynocentrism to be hijacked.
Yes, men's testosterone pushes them to defend their own status but not the status of other men (the competitors) unless they are on the same team. Men do have an in-group bias but it is not like women's which is for their sex, men's in-group bias is for their own team.
Meanwhile it seems the Biden Admin is going back to college rape accusation is proof that it happened, and the men have no right to question their accusers.
Feminism also taught that female freedom requires casual sex and promiscuity, so it would seem that is a classic case of wanting the cake and to eat it too.
That said, any man who forces himself on a woman is not a real man.
The final sentence is the power feminists have keyed into successfully for over 100 years at least. The suffragettes here in the UK realised this with the public reaction to photos of burley policemen restraining "ladies". Whereas their bombing campaign backfired the ide of ladies being force fed or restrained soon got the white knights going. Since then the "wife beater" and "rapist" has always been pivotal. In the early 80s my future sister in law was one of the wimmin at greenham common (protesting American cruise missiles) and one of their explicit tactics was to goad the police into moving them physically, because they knew the press would cast them as damsels in distress. The truth is they long ago got clever and in a "man's world" the trick is to get men to decide your enemies are not being proper men. It really is the irony of "toxic masculinity" that in fact feminists rely on masculine men to do their bidding. If men weren't in general "real men" then they'd not give a fig about women's safely and security, and the huge edifice built on tackling VAWG would not exist.
“ Meanwhile it seems the Biden Admin is going back to college rape accusation is proof that it happened”
Yep, this is men using women to keep other men down.
It’s a power play.
"Feminism also taught that female freedom requires casual sex and promiscuity, so it would seem that is a classic case of wanting the cake and to eat it too. "
Indeed. Feminists in several nations have protested against their governments' proposal of gender neutral rape laws. In each instance the governments caved in. In essence said feminist and womens' groups were protesting for the right to commit rape. I guess it's OK when they do it.